Representation and Advocacy in Arbitration Between Mandatory Seat Rules and Party Autonomy

The question of who is entitled to represent a party before an arbitral tribunal may seem like a simple procedural question, but it is in fact one of the most sensitive issues in arbitration practice. The reason is that this question stands at the intersection of two intertwined yet competing ideas: the regulation of legal practice and advocacy as a matter protected by mandatory rules in many countries, and the nature of arbitration as a flexible consensual path based on party autonomy in managing their dispute. The argument that compliance with the laws of the seat of arbitration is the most defensible becomes stronger and more balanced when built on a clear logical basis: arbitration, however consensual, is a dispute resolution proceeding in which acts of representation and advocacy are performed in terms of their effect, and therefore it cannot be entirely isolated from the mandatory rules of the state chosen as the seat of arbitration. First: Why is representation and advocacy fund